Top 20% of households pay vast majority of income taxes

[dblack]

Who would you rather be the top 20% paying most of the taxes or the bottom 80%? And are you suggesting 80% of voters need to pay more taxes?

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

Soon infrastructure is going to require a tax increase. So if you were a politician, you would raise taxes on all 100% equally, not a heavier tax on the rich. A flat tax.

This is another way the rich have widened the gap between the rich and rest of us.

I would do a 1.5% federal consumption tax

A consumption tax directly targets the working class.

You need to take an Econ class, Mr. Communist

Nope. OnePercenter is a wealthy capitalist. Just ask him!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

Soon infrastructure is going to require a tax increase. So if you were a politician, you would raise taxes on all 100% equally, not a heavier tax on the rich. A flat tax.

This is another way the rich have widened the gap between the rich and rest of us.

I would do a 1.5% federal consumption tax

A consumption tax directly targets the working class.

You need to take an Econ class, Mr. Communist

Nope. OnePercenter is a wealthy capitalist. Just ask him!

He is not even educated in basic Finance and Econ.

 

[Lesh]

The top 20% of households paid 88.1% of federal income taxes, and 69.5% of total federal taxes in 2015, ATR notes, citing the most recent numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The top one percent (around 1.2 million households) paid 39.4% of federal income taxes and 26.2% of total federal taxes, at an average total tax rate of 33.3%, dropping its average income from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. Its total percent of income was 16.6% before taxes and 13.2% after taxes.

A few key numbers from the other four quintiles via the CBO's 2015 report:

• The fourth quintile was taxed at 17.9% federal income tax and saw its average income of $108,000 drop to $91,000. Its share of income was 20% before and after taxes.
• The middle quintile was taxed at 14% federal income tax and saw its average income drop from $71,000 to $65,000. Share of income: 13.6% before taxes, 14.7% after.
• The second quintile paid 9.2% federal income tax but saw its average income of $44,000 increase to $47,000 from means-tested transfers. Share of income: 8.7% before transfers and taxes, 11% after.
• The bottom quintile paid 1.5% federal income tax and saw its average income of $20,000 grow from transfers to $33,000. Share of income: $3.7 before transfers and taxes, 11% after.

So why are we thinking of taxing the rich even more? How about addressing:

-- Entitlements;
-- Illegal Immigration - each illegal costs us ~$77k per year;
-- Fraud in our welfare system ($1.1Trn welfare system)

My solutions would be:

-- Entitlement reform in terms of raising the retirement age and giving people under 30 the option to invest SS monies privately (exiting the Social program). Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Use vouchers perhaps.

-- Get rid of sanctuary cities and enforce deportations.

-- Hire more officers to enforce waste and fraud.

Thoughts....?

Who would you rather be the top 20% paying most of the taxes or the bottom 80%? And are you suggesting 80% of voters need to pay more taxes?

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

You are VERY wrong.

An opinion can be wrong?

An opinion can be stupid.

An opinion can be dishonest.

Yours are both

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The top 20% of households paid 88.1% of federal income taxes, and 69.5% of total federal taxes in 2015, ATR notes, citing the most recent numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The top one percent (around 1.2 million households) paid 39.4% of federal income taxes and 26.2% of total federal taxes, at an average total tax rate of 33.3%, dropping its average income from $1.9 million to $1.2 million. Its total percent of income was 16.6% before taxes and 13.2% after taxes.

A few key numbers from the other four quintiles via the CBO's 2015 report:

• The fourth quintile was taxed at 17.9% federal income tax and saw its average income of $108,000 drop to $91,000. Its share of income was 20% before and after taxes.
• The middle quintile was taxed at 14% federal income tax and saw its average income drop from $71,000 to $65,000. Share of income: 13.6% before taxes, 14.7% after.
• The second quintile paid 9.2% federal income tax but saw its average income of $44,000 increase to $47,000 from means-tested transfers. Share of income: 8.7% before transfers and taxes, 11% after.
• The bottom quintile paid 1.5% federal income tax and saw its average income of $20,000 grow from transfers to $33,000. Share of income: $3.7 before transfers and taxes, 11% after.

So why are we thinking of taxing the rich even more? How about addressing:

-- Entitlements;
-- Illegal Immigration - each illegal costs us ~$77k per year;
-- Fraud in our welfare system ($1.1Trn welfare system)

My solutions would be:

-- Entitlement reform in terms of raising the retirement age and giving people under 30 the option to invest SS monies privately (exiting the Social program). Reform Medicare and Medicaid. Use vouchers perhaps.

-- Get rid of sanctuary cities and enforce deportations.

-- Hire more officers to enforce waste and fraud.

Thoughts....?

Who would you rather be the top 20% paying most of the taxes or the bottom 80%? And are you suggesting 80% of voters need to pay more taxes?

I am Suggesting the rich pay their fare share already so there is no need to raise taxes on them

You are VERY wrong.

An opinion can be wrong?

An opinion can be stupid.

An opinion can be dishonest.

Yours are both

I believe you’re a very nice And smart person. Oh shoot you’re right. Eeeek.

 

[Flash]

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Well of course because it is profitable. No one does anything, unless it is profitable to do so.

Regardless, all people are involved in the "economy" I agree. But to deny that rich people create jobs and wealth, you are crazy. Look at any economy where the rich and wealthy are removed. You see how happy and productive and wealthy they are? NO. Flat out, you do not.

How many countries around the world, and the vast population is the economy there to... yet you remove the wealthy, and the economy is destroy, and people are starving. Happens routinely.

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

He is using it as an example of people having Demand but there is no supply. Basic Econ

The Moon Bat doesn't know jackshit about economics. Not a clue.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Well of course because it is profitable. No one does anything, unless it is profitable to do so.

Regardless, all people are involved in the "economy" I agree. But to deny that rich people create jobs and wealth, you are crazy. Look at any economy where the rich and wealthy are removed. You see how happy and productive and wealthy they are? NO. Flat out, you do not.

How many countries around the world, and the vast population is the economy there to... yet you remove the wealthy, and the economy is destroy, and people are starving. Happens routinely.

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

He is using it as an example of people having Demand but there is no supply. Basic Econ

The Moon Bat doesn't know jackshit about economics. Not a clue.

Yet his vote is equal to mine. Scary.

 

[initforme]

So the top 20 percent pays most. The remaining 80 percent had nothing to pay with when 98 percent of the wealth is in the top 20 percent. Simple math.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sure, because it's profitable. A good investment and only because there were and are consumers demanding what they offer. It's the bulk of America that makes our economy work. Not rich people.

Investment only makes up 15% of GDP.
Consumer spending is 70%.

Well of course because it is profitable. No one does anything, unless it is profitable to do so.

Regardless, all people are involved in the "economy" I agree. But to deny that rich people create jobs and wealth, you are crazy. Look at any economy where the rich and wealthy are removed. You see how happy and productive and wealthy they are? NO. Flat out, you do not.

How many countries around the world, and the vast population is the economy there to... yet you remove the wealthy, and the economy is destroy, and people are starving. Happens routinely.

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

He is using it as an example of people having Demand but there is no supply. Basic Econ

Which, like I said, has nothing to do with the US.

 

[Flash]

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

He is using it as an example of people having Demand but there is no supply. Basic Econ

The Moon Bat doesn't know jackshit about economics. Not a clue.

Yet his vote is equal to mine. Scary.

It takes a lot of idiots to elect Democrats to Congress or the Presidency.

Moon Bats like him that are confused about simple economics make really bad decisions at the polls.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

[


I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

You are very confused about this. Have you ever taken a course in Economics?

I'm sure your local Community College has a course in Economics. You should really consider signing up for it.

You are getting beat up on this thread because you are lacking basic knowledge of how an economy works.

Capital is the driver for economic growth.

Poor people don't create jobs. They can "demand" all they want but if they don't have the money nothing is going is going to be bought. In order for them to get the money for demand they have to have jobs that are created by people with excess capital to invest.

Fuck you, hillbilly.

I'm getting beat up? Not likely.
You don't have a clue.

Consumers drive the economy. Not investment.
Investment capitalizes on demand. It doesn't create it.

You couldn't get through the first test in an economics course.

There are a lot of consumers in Venezuela yet that economy is in shambles. Ton of consumers in the old Soviet Union but the store shelves were empty. Without capitalism and innovation the consumer has nothing to purchase

Demand drives investment and innovation. They capitalize on it. They don't create it.

Business makes a profit by meeting demand, not by virtue of it's existence.

So the old Soviet Union didn’t have demand?

Why the strawmen?
You know your argument is weak.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Well of course because it is profitable. No one does anything, unless it is profitable to do so.

Regardless, all people are involved in the "economy" I agree. But to deny that rich people create jobs and wealth, you are crazy. Look at any economy where the rich and wealthy are removed. You see how happy and productive and wealthy they are? NO. Flat out, you do not.

How many countries around the world, and the vast population is the economy there to... yet you remove the wealthy, and the economy is destroy, and people are starving. Happens routinely.

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

He is using it as an example of people having Demand but there is no supply. Basic Econ

Which, like I said, has nothing to do with the US.

Yes we know you don’t get context. Thank you for reminding us that you are case in point of “Are you dumber than a 5th grader”.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You are very confused about this. Have you ever taken a course in Economics?

I'm sure your local Community College has a course in Economics. You should really consider signing up for it.

You are getting beat up on this thread because you are lacking basic knowledge of how an economy works.

Capital is the driver for economic growth.

Poor people don't create jobs. They can "demand" all they want but if they don't have the money nothing is going is going to be bought. In order for them to get the money for demand they have to have jobs that are created by people with excess capital to invest.

Fuck you, hillbilly.

I'm getting beat up? Not likely.
You don't have a clue.

Consumers drive the economy. Not investment.
Investment capitalizes on demand. It doesn't create it.

You couldn't get through the first test in an economics course.

There are a lot of consumers in Venezuela yet that economy is in shambles. Ton of consumers in the old Soviet Union but the store shelves were empty. Without capitalism and innovation the consumer has nothing to purchase

Demand drives investment and innovation. They capitalize on it. They don't create it.

Business makes a profit by meeting demand, not by virtue of it's existence.

So the old Soviet Union didn’t have demand?

Why the strawmen?
You know your argument is weak.

It’s not a strawman. My point is that Demand alone cannot drive capitalism.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I never even hinted that rich people don't play a role. I just said they don't drive the economy in the ways you guys characterize.

Not all rich people run enterprises with thousands of employees. There's plenty of rich folks who just make money with money.

Certainly Lebron James is not creating jobs in any significant way.

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

He is using it as an example of people having Demand but there is no supply. Basic Econ

Which, like I said, has nothing to do with the US.

Yes we know you don’t get context. Thank you for reminding us that you are case in point of “Are you dumber than a 5th grader”.

The context is the US economy, dope.

 

[Flash]

Fuck you, hillbilly.

I'm getting beat up? Not likely.
You don't have a clue.

Consumers drive the economy. Not investment.
Investment capitalizes on demand. It doesn't create it.

You couldn't get through the first test in an economics course.

There are a lot of consumers in Venezuela yet that economy is in shambles. Ton of consumers in the old Soviet Union but the store shelves were empty. Without capitalism and innovation the consumer has nothing to purchase

Demand drives investment and innovation. They capitalize on it. They don't create it.

Business makes a profit by meeting demand, not by virtue of it's existence.

So the old Soviet Union didn’t have demand?

Why the strawmen?
You know your argument is weak.

It’s not a strawman. My point is that Demand alone cannot drive capitalism.

If it did then all those shithead Illegals that the stupid Democrats allow to flood across our borders would be living the high life because they sure as hell have the demand.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Fuck you, hillbilly.

I'm getting beat up? Not likely.
You don't have a clue.

Consumers drive the economy. Not investment.
Investment capitalizes on demand. It doesn't create it.

You couldn't get through the first test in an economics course.

There are a lot of consumers in Venezuela yet that economy is in shambles. Ton of consumers in the old Soviet Union but the store shelves were empty. Without capitalism and innovation the consumer has nothing to purchase

Demand drives investment and innovation. They capitalize on it. They don't create it.

Business makes a profit by meeting demand, not by virtue of it's existence.

So the old Soviet Union didn’t have demand?

Why the strawmen?
You know your argument is weak.

It’s not a strawman. My point is that Demand alone cannot drive capitalism.

You're an MBA alright. Major Bullshit Artist.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Oh I think they do. Because again... without rich people, nothing else can happen.

Again, just look at Venezuela.

Venezuelans block streets with cars to protest gas shortage in Andes | Reuters

View attachment 240784

Is there no demand? Yes there is.
Is there no supply? Yes, Venezuela has the most known oil reserves in the world.

So why is there a national fuel shortage?

No rich people.

If you think of any other context, you would see this is obvious. If you go to Malawi. Lots of roads, lots of people walking. Is there demand for transportation? Of course.

Why don't all the poor people come together, and using the power of demand, create a car factory? There are people in Malawi that need cars. Have been for ages. And they have money. So why don't those poor people just build cars for everyone?

Well obviously because without money, you can't buy the land. Without money you can't pay the engineers to design the car. Without money you can't pay the designers to design the manufacturing plant. Without money you can't build the plant. Without money you can't purchase the initial parts. Without money you can't hire the starting crew to run the plant.

The wealthy absolutely are the driving factor behind any economy.

Venezuela has not a thing to do with the US economy.

He is using it as an example of people having Demand but there is no supply. Basic Econ

Which, like I said, has nothing to do with the US.

Yes we know you don’t get context. Thank you for reminding us that you are case in point of “Are you dumber than a 5th grader”.

The context is the US economy, dope.

Your post illustrates you’re the real dope here. Too bad you don’t see it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

There are a lot of consumers in Venezuela yet that economy is in shambles. Ton of consumers in the old Soviet Union but the store shelves were empty. Without capitalism and innovation the consumer has nothing to purchase

Demand drives investment and innovation. They capitalize on it. They don't create it.

Business makes a profit by meeting demand, not by virtue of it's existence.

So the old Soviet Union didn’t have demand?

Why the strawmen?
You know your argument is weak.

It’s not a strawman. My point is that Demand alone cannot drive capitalism.

You're an MBA alright. Major Bullshit Artist.

You are a waste of space. Honestly.

 

[francoHFW]

Demand drives investment and innovation. They capitalize on it. They don't create it.

Business makes a profit by meeting demand, not by virtue of it's existence.

So the old Soviet Union didn’t have demand?

Why the strawmen?
You know your argument is weak.

It’s not a strawman. My point is that Demand alone cannot drive capitalism.

You're an MBA alright. Major Bullshit Artist.

You are a waste of space. Honestly.

And here is what actually has happened the last 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... The ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Released

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So the old Soviet Union didn’t have demand?

Why the strawmen?
You know your argument is weak.

It’s not a strawman. My point is that Demand alone cannot drive capitalism.

You're an MBA alright. Major Bullshit Artist.

You are a waste of space. Honestly.

And here is what actually has happened the last 35 years of GOP giveaway to the rich and cuts in services for the rest... The ruin of the middle class and our infrastructure...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Released

Too long. Read zero of it. You wasted your time.

 

[francoHFW]

So proud of your ignorance and stupidity aren't you, perfect chump of the greedy idiot rich GOP...